The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Yes Arrow, God Is Fantasy

Re: Yes Arrow, God Is Fantasy
Posted by Arrow (Guest) - Wednesday, March 7 2012, 14:21:36 (UTC)
from 95.172.203.47 - 95.172.203.47 - Windows NT - Safari
Website:
Website title:

Dear Anonymous,

I read your responses again. I find them very informative. Unfortunately I do not possess the knowlege to examine and assess the scientific information you have kindly provided. I hope, however, I could have the opportunity to learn from you further about the theories proposed regarding the origin and nature of the universe.

(I included my previous comments here)

The Universe began from a quantum fluctuation of phase transition from potential energy to kinetic energy. Quantum fluctuations were the first cause and "prime mover" of the Universe. The Universe prior to the inflationary expansion event, was in a quantum state

This is one of several theories proposed by cosmologists. There is, for example, the theory of an oscillating universe (does it contradict the law of entropy?), and also the theory of a cyclical universe by Roger Penrose. Therefore, no theory has gained unanimous acceptance in the scientific community. Are they, like God, metaphysical or non-falsifiable?

In fact, because energy is created all the time, and I use the term "created" very loosely here, through virtual particle pairs. The Universe couldn't have been caused by chance. But by a process that happens with regularity and consistency.

Here is what I understood. With the regard to the pre-Big Bang "period", there was a state of quantum vacuum. Throught quantum flunctuations or virtual particle pairs, energy is continuously being "created", and from energy we get the Big Bang singularities? Is quantum vaccuum some sort of an eternal bubble machine that keeps producing Big Bang singularities that inflate themselves into universes? If so, then we can then assume that there may be perhaps an infinite number of universes.

Why can't there be an infinite chain of causes? And why is that impossible?

There may be, but since the universe may have had a beginning, we can then say that infinite regression probably did not exist. You also said that the quantum flunctuations were the prime movers. So we agree that it didn't and that there was a prime mover.

Also, how can an unfathomably complex, supernatural and conscious being exist uncaused

For the same reason that energy or quantum flunctuation exist uncaused. 

complexity arises from simplicity. Through a process of inherited genetic modification (mutations) guided by Natural Selection. What selective pressures did it undergo in order to achieve its complexity?

We are assuming here that God is like an organism, composed of atoms and particles, and therefore he has a shape, dimension, and a degree of complexity. The idea here is that he is not composed of any material object. He is like energy.

consciousness is a byproduct of chemical reactions in the brain, so how can something that exists outside of existence have a brain?

Several philosphers have suggested that the mind and the brain are separate. But if they are not, then what is consciousness? If consciousness is a byproduct of material causes, then are we free? Are we in control of those chemical reactions or are they in control of us? Isn't it possible that everything we do is determined by natural causes and stimuluses? What if it was a combination of causes, perceived and unperceived, that has led me to choose and write the very words you are now reading?

We don't "know" that the Universe didn't exist forever

I am aware of that. But an expanding universe has shed doubts on the ancient Aristotelian view that the universe has always been there foreover. The idea that the universe may have have had a beginning has become a possibility (not an established fact though). And if it is a possibility then, as Hawking said, the creator becomes a possibility. The question here is whether it had a beginning or not. You are suggesting it didn't, and it may be the case. But, as you said, we still do not know.

It isn't proof. As I said, it's just an abstraction, one that has not been corroborated through empirical evidence or reason. It is nothing more than an Argument from Incredulity

I suppose you were referring to the argument of the first cause. Why it has not been corroborated through empirical evidence or reason? Can a material event cause itself? And how is it an argument from incredulity?

As for transcendental, anything that exists outside of Spacetime is the equivalent to proclaiming Nonexistence exists. Which is a self-contradictory proposition, and thus impossible.

It is impossible for a material being to exist outside spacetime, but not our own spacetime. If there are other universes then they do exist outside our own spacetime.

The Universe is not "fine-tuned" [b]

I now realize that this notion is questionable. But it has been accepted accepted by several prominent scientists (Fred Hoyle, Brandon Carter, Martine Rees). And for this reason, I presume, they are discussing the possibility of the multiverse.

[b] Supporting Statement 2: Consciousness is contingent upon existence.

In my view, human consciousess is contingent upon the existence of the human brain. Divine consciousness does not have to be continguent upon anything. That is one of the reasons why it is supernatural.

Supporting Statement 3: It is impossible for a conscious, immaterial being to exist outside of Space and Time. Because it doesn't abide by the Law of Causality.

Quantum flunctuations had no causality.

I think the laws of nature is something we observe here withing the universe. It is supported by empirical observation. But things we observe and experiment within the unverse doesn't necessarily apply elsewhere. We observe, emperically, that nothing can travel than the speed of light. We do know if that is the case in other universes.

Supporting Statement 1: The Nature of existence is only ontologically viable and tenable within the Natural Universe.

Why? The whole idea of a supernational creator is that he is outside nature or else he would not called supernatural.

Supporting Statement 2: Anything antecedent towards existence itself, cannot exist. 

I didn't quite get that. Anything that antecedes the existence universe cannot exist?



---------------------


The full topic:



Host: www.insideassyria.com
Connection: close
Content-length: 7096
Cache-control: max-age=0
Origin: http://www.insideassyria.com
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1) AppleWebKit/535.11 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/17.0.963.66 Safari/535.11
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: text/html,application/xhtml+xml,application/xml;q=0.9,*/*;q=0.8
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_Yes_Arrow_God_Is_Fantasy-CKOk.DJsz.QUOTE
Accept-encoding: gzip,deflate,sdch
Accept-language: en-US,en;q=0.8
Accept-charset: ISO-8859-1,utf-8;q=0.7,*;q=0.3
Cookie: *hidded*



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9